2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The Defendant planned to have been granted money 19 times by deceiving the victim, and did not recover any damage up to now.

Defendant has experience of being punished 11 times or more due to the same crime, and in particular, constitutes a repeated crime, and there is no new change in circumstances that may change the punishment of the lower court in the trial of a political party.

In addition, when comprehensively considering various sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, health conditions (if the defendant suffers from the felbal felth of the upper half), living environment, motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and the relationship of criminal records (where the defendant is judged concurrently with the crime of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act), which are revealed at the hearing of the lower court and the political party, the punishment imposed by the lower court is not severe within the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.